I'm not sure if this book is a rewritten doctoral thesis, but it sure seems like one. As such, its title is very misleading. A more suitable title would have been "Phone questionnaire to residents of Chicago in 1982 concerning legal experiences ". In true academic fashion, the author presents other people's theories about the basis of legal legitimacy and diligently notes the corresponding correlation coefficients in his data and how much variance each factor "explains".

This is a small academic contribution which is of absolutely no interest to people who don't work in this field of social science. The author tries to put numbers on earlier theories of how ordinary people view legitimacy, but he does not offer any new perspectives on why people obey the law. In fact, even his final conclusions on the results of his "Chicago study" are stated in such vapid language that you might miss them if you're not playing close attention. Which, on the other hand, wouldn't be a very big loss, since they're not going to tell you anything that you didn't already intuitively know.

It's amazing that someone at Princeton University Press actually considered it worthwhile to republish this 24-year old study in 2006. In an amusing Afterword section, the author throws in another 100 references to more recent literature, most of which are his own publications. I can't imagine that anyone would find that useful or interesting. Unfortunately I was fooled into buying this book by its title, which gives the impression of a general discussion of legitimacy. Be warned that this book contains nothing of that sort.

Not a new edition, but does include a new afterword in which Tyler reviews the theoretical advances and new literature on the question of why people obey the law: "people's motivation to cooperate with others, in this case legal authorities, is rooted in social relationships and ethical judgments [often captured in the idea of procedural justice], and does not primarily flow from the desire to avoid punishments or gain rewards." The need to assert this view, based upon empirical research, remains critical given the ongoing efforts of other scholars (e.g., Frederick Schauer, The Force of Law) to reduce law to the ability to enforce rules through sanction. ( )